Karunanidhi's non-solution

Karunanidhi's non-solution

The `solution' suggested by M. Karunanidhi to Sri Lanka's ethnic problem is a hard riddle to solve. What exactly does the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister mean by a Czechoslovakia-type answer to the issue that the island nation has thus far found intractable? The DMK president cannot really be unaware of the untenability of his proposal on many counts.

He should know, for example, that the analogy of the East European state, which split into Czech and Slovak republics in the wake of historic developments in the Second World headed by the Soviet Union, does not apply to Sri Lanka at all. Nor can he believe in the possibility of a `bloodless' break-up of this kind in the country torn by so sanguinary a civil war for such long years. More than mildly contradictory, too, are his reported quips comparing the majority-minority conflict across the Palk Strait to a case of marital discord.

Soon after suggesting a Sinhala-Tamil `divorce' on the ground of `incompatibility', he asks the Centre not to interfere in other's `family affairs'. Is it his case that Chennai alone has a mandate to meddle in these affairs? All things considered, the fuzzy formula would appear to be Kaurnanidhi's solution, not so much to the neighbouring nation's problem, as to a peculiar predicament of his own party. The context makes it clear that his statements on the subject were meant for the consumption of his own political camp in the state, rather than either New Delhi or Colombo.

The prescription came soon after his earlier statement that had persuaded V. Gopalasamy of the MDMK (Karunanidhi's partner in the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance) to put off indefinitely a pro-Eelam rally in Chennai. By a `birthday message', the CM had prevailed on Vaiko not to persist with the `problematic' rally. If the DMK leader felt constrained to follow this up with the formula at a function on the same occasion, it was not without reason. The cadres and traditional supporters of the DMK needed to be reassured that its opposition to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam meant no dilution of the loyalty of the party and its leadership to the cause of Sri Lankan Tamils and even the separatist plank espoused on their behalf.

Karunanidhi's `solution' could not have come closer to the Eelam, espoused by the LTTE and endorsed by Vaiko. He has hardly made it appear any different by that bit about a `bloodless' change. Witness the kudos the proposition has received from the avowedly pro-Eelam andpro-LTTE quarters, along with criticism from parties ranging from the Congress and the Left even to the BJP trying to put a brave face on it all.

Karunanidhi has not convincingly answered criticism from the BJP and public apprehensions on this score by claiming that he has spoken as the leader of his party and not as the head of the state government. There can be no excuse for such double-speak. It was bad enough, the MDMK and the PMK pleading a special right to a stance in direct contravention of the commitment of the Central government, in which they are partners, to the cause of Sri Lanka's unity and integrity. Karunanidhi's statements make it worse. It is time the NDA as a whole had ensured that it did not speak on it with a cacophony of voices.